[captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] president roosevelt got that right 80 years ago, and many of those reforms of the 1930's and the success of the next 80 years, and that is what president obama did as well after the crisis that he took on five years ago. but i think it is through these dodd-frank reforms that any of which are now being implemented. i want to mention a couple of mine around the table, if i can. i just have six real quick ones.

i think the heart reform is ensuring the largest financial institutions have the freedom to fail. i dad's small business of baltimore, if he did not make payroll, nobody was going to bail him out, and that is at the ore of what dodd-frank is. that is why i was so pleased just last month when moody's, the large rating agency, removed this uplift them and the credit ratings of the largest tank holding companies that had come to be the cause of perceived government backing, and that works because of title ii of dodd-frank and all over the fdic and the fed did, and ben and his people in the bank relators in supporting everything -- and marty. and before that, sheila did. the second thing i think is making sure that there is enough capital on hand, and i know -- where is dan? he is sitting somewhere. i've have been on all these international meetings where dan has been tireless, along with tom's people, and making sure there's enough capital in the system and the stress tests really work.

that is really coming into being. we have a new agency with the energetic leadership richard cordray making sure that consumers are looked out for. we have a lot to do in the mortgage area. chairman schapiro is such a friend of mine, and mary jo white took on the issues of hedge funds and transparency and you're getting the money market reform done, and there's a lot of reform in that way, too. because those parts of the sectors are outside the banking system directly that that was a import. fifthly, working with the fdic, everything you have done with that derivatives market. $380 trillion market. the public can see you. 70% interest rates are already cleared. that would not have happened

without dodd-frank, without the sec and so forth. each of us have been vigorous cops on the beat. we have different enforcement authorities around this table. at the cftc cannot we have worked with the justice department and the sec. we exposed the pervasive rigging against the interest rate arket. our annual report highlights his. i think the last thing i oticed, just the council itself, i was honored to serve in the clinton administration as well whenever something called the president's working group. through secretary geithner's leadership, this council has come together, a place where we can collaborate them a have honest discussions, and when we disagree, we disagree agreeably. and i think the sign of that is that tomorrow we will, as i can predict -- keep fingers crossed -- i think we will bring an important rule across the line,

he volcker rule. gain, thank you. >> i do not have a statement. i want to thank you, mr. secretary, for those kind words, and thank my colleagues on the council. very rewarding working with all of you, and i think the council has served its purpose of helping us work together better and to better coordinate our efforts. very important that we recognize the financial system is a system. we cannot look at a piece by piece, but as a whole, and the council has been effective in promoting that holistic approach to oversight and regulation. so thank you, and again, it is been a pleasure working with all of you. >> on behalf of the council, thank you both for tremendous service. [applause]

>> as we approach the end of the year, i think it is safe to say that in recent months we have seen one of the most active periods of financial reform since the president signed dodd-frank into law. agencies have put and finalize mortgage will. this council designated companies for enhanced standards. federal reserve supervision, new requirements for otc rivatives for trading went into effect to reduce risks from the large and previously unregulated market them and as gary noted, we are on the verge of seeing the volcker rule completed. this work couldn't finish the final piece of the dodd-frank implementation, harmonizing international forms so that risks abroad did not pose risks here, creating strong

protections for the money market fund industry, and moving forward on a bipartisan basis with significant reform to attract more private capital into the market. even as we get this done, the job of maintaining a safe financial system will continue. it is an ongoing effort that hat is never finished. we have to keep up the steps to version more aggressively to identify emerging risks, and hen necessary take action. for today's meeting, we have two topics for discussion. first we will start with a very important topic of cybersecurity. it is a question of how the public and private sectors are working together to combat cyber threats. and as this council highlighted in our 2013 annual report, cybersecurity and the broader area of operational risk is growing in targeted focus for financial regulators.

it has been an important book is for me as treasury secretary and as chair of the council. today we will hear from an assistant secretary for financial institutions whose officers, as chair of the finest of and banking infrastructure committee. we are also happy to welcome kelly king, chairman and ceo of bb&t corporation. he serves as chair of the financial services roundtable technology policy terms of, and has been instrumental in organizing efforts to address cybersecurity. they will review the two priorities for the public and private sectors and will outline the important collaborative efforts being taken to promote the financial sector's resilience against cyber ttack. with that, i turn it over to hem. >> thank you, mr. secretary, and members of the financial stability oversight counsel for the opportunity to speak today

about cybersecurity about the public-sector's role, and our collaboration with national services sector. our experience over the next couple years shows that cyber threats to national institutions and markets are growing in ophistication. the changing nature of these threats prompted this cancel last year to highlight operational risk and cybersecurity in particular as worthy of heightened risk management and attention. in response to these threats, the u.s. government and financial sector have come together to identify vulnerabilities, reprove resilience. i would like to highlight a few features of this effort begin. first, as is true with other aspects of forgetting financial

stability, this effort needs to be constant and continuous. there will not be a day where we can sit back and take our job is done. some of the reasons why the challenge will be daily are as follows -- rapidly changing technology, increasing and expanding reliance by financial companies on technology to perform business and customer interaction functions, the creativity and persistence of would be cyber attackers and complexity of network rchitecture. so while we have made progress on her efforts to protect the financial system among we will always have much work ahead of us. second, the public-private partnership in this area is not only desirable, it is necessary. some of the threats that concern us the most and has the potential for creating the greatest harm our deliberate actions with the intent to cause damage to the financial system. as a result, protection of our financial system can succeed only by combining the resources and capabilities of government with those of the private sector. third, this endeavor it is about

protecting the financial sector as a whole from the largest financial institutions and exchanges to community banks and credit unions. accordingly, we work to reach financial institutions of all sizes and types. each stakeholder has an important role to play in this collective endeavor. i will share with you some key aspects of treasury's ongoing work on cybersecurity. i will outline our work to partner with other agencies, regulators, and the private sector to enhance cybersecurity. treasury serves as the sector's specific agency for the financial sector, which means it plays a leading role in policy development and a coordinating role in incident response. in this role, treasury has sought to increase engagement, improved coordination, and facilitate information sharing on cybersecurity issues with colleagues across the federal government, particularly those involved in national security, homeland security, and law enforcement. the committee regularly with senior officials in these areas on matters specific to

ybersecurity come up with in the complex of incidents and the more general operational and policy matters. more specifically, over the past year treasury has facilitated detailed cybersecurity briefings, including classified briefings, for both financial regulatory community and the financial sector. on many occasions, these briefings have been conducted by experts from other agencies. and the audience has been diverse. art utilities such as exchanges and clearing houses, large and small banks, insurance companies, credit unions, and asset managers. briefings have been held across the country to the help of partner agencies, both to amend their offices available and have assisted us in conducting the briefings. we have also collaborated with other agencies, especially law enforcement, on incident esponse. treasury's role during an incident often is to facilitate the provisions by other government agencies with technical assistance to

financial firms. treasury is also focused on streamlining the dissemination of information we receive, notably actionable threat affirmation. to that end, we continue to improve our communications with a broader national security community so we can efficiently received threat information, analyze and declassified information as appropriate, and provide it probably either to affected firms or to the sector s a whole. this option is performed by dedicated personnel used task is to share information on a regular, timely basis. they are in continual contact with the private sector's fsi group, which is a could go partner into stripping information to stakeholders. this partnership is an important building block of the public partnership. as i have indicated come other agencies in the u.s. government are also active and partners in this endeavor. the basic concept is the foundation of the executive order, which was issued in

february of this year. in the executive order directs agencies and departments to work with the private sector to take steps to protect our nation against cyber threats. under the executive order, we have been collaborating with other agencies to help the national institute of standards and technology to develop a framework to protect our critical infrastructure from cyber risk. the preliminary framework available for public comment, and the financial regulatory community and the financial sector both have been highly engaged in providing feedback throughout the process. the work under the executive order is vital, but it is not a substitute for cybersecurity legislation. administration hopes to work with congress to ensure our laws keep pace with the evolving threats while protecting privacy and civil liberties. in addition to our work to implement the president's executive order, we also work daily with law enforcement,

intelligence, and the department of homeland security on cyber ssues. first, we look to the intelligence community to provide us with threat and vulnerability information. we work with the broader intelligence community to analyze those threats and share them with the private sector. second, we work with law enforcement and dhs to disseminate information to financial firms and provide technical assistance, and particularly in the case of an incident, we as a government endeavored to be present at the scene and offer any assistance we are capable of providing. third, we look at dhs and other cabinet agencies in case another sector could affect the financial sector. the experience of superstorm sandy was instructed. a firm or have difficulty functioning if there's no electricity or telecommunications, or if it's most important resources, its employees, cannot get to work. cybersecurity is a priority for regulators.

n addition, the council as a whole has been briefed on cybersecurity and other operational risk matters. his was a focus of the council's 2013 annual eport. broadly speaking, the financial regulators addressed cybersecurity to regulation and guidance, supervision, and participation in incident response. information security procedures and testing, adequate backup systems, and emergency business continuity and recovery plans. an important goal of these activities is to ensure that each firm under supervision has adequate policies and procedures n place to protect itself from cyber attacks and potential consequences. for example, the federal financial institutions

examination council have over the years established uniform principles and standards for the examination of financial institutions during the examinations rely on manuals developed for this very purpose and for other relevant literature, including publications on standards. arlier this year the working group was convened to update its approach to supervision and examination, with respect to cybersecurity. another example of activity in this area is the securities and exchange commission proposed regulation. as the council appreciates cyber security is a complex subject. given the nature of the threat and his potential sources, it can be addressed only through a whole government approach combined with a strong public-private partnership. that is the essence of the

president's is negative order and a summation of our efforts. we have organized the production of the financial system. cyber threats are here to stay, and we must remain vigilant to its ever evolving character. thank you for the opportunity to address this important issue before the council. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for allowing the on behalf of my industry to be here today, and i thank the council members for allowing me this privilege. if i make to take the privilege of a sitting our angst to chairman ben bernanke and gary gensler. in the area of cyber, i will sum it up, the world has changed. we are not going back. we have made progress, but we are long way to go. risk is increasing in pace and complexity, potential impact. it is from fraudsters to people causing disruption to nation

states' manipulation and disruption. it is a big risk. we have to do all we can to mitigate that risk. what has been done? over the last 18 months, our industry has been coming together to do a number of things that i would like to share with you briefly. richard davis and i encourage you in the effort to raise the level of awareness of and ceo's in a country from a level that in all honesty 18 months ago was not as heightened as it needed to be to a level today check it is far from where why have to become but is much more advanced han a while ago. we are making progress. we have heard of the attacks, they have done a lot to raise everybody's attention with regard to this area. the last 12 months we have had three cybersecurity summits. treasury has worked closely with us in pulling this together. we have great industry participation.

also, mr. secretary, we have good support from the society security infrastructure. we have developed a comprehensive plan in five areas. these plans are to enhance information sharing and. improving in communication and dvocacy. three areas you may be interested where we are making progress is what we call internet top level domains. what controls the international allocation of domain names, about a year ago, it made everybody aware that it was allocating some new domains that could be controlled. he fsr in working with the aba

has been working together. it has been a huge deal today because everybody's information and insurance information travels over the dot-com network. think of it as a 24-lane highway, people going 90 miles an hour. a lot of chance for people in that scenario. this is a much more controlled the domain and will allow a four-lane access to a highway so your information sharing will be much more confidential. making investments in something we call information sharing, which is an organization to analyze authorization between nstitutions. what we are doing there is

dramatically increasing the capacity of them to make available information to all of the 14,000 and credit unions around the country, because the day the information is moving at a snail pace, and when we get it, and in the future is to move real time. we are happy about that. we're developing a secure cloud whereby if the future your credit card and debit card payments will not be as insecure as they are today, because while it is complex, effectively your information will never be disclosed to a merchant. it will travel through a cloud and no one outside of the banking industry will control that information. these are three important undertakings that are going to substantially reduce the risk and make a nice step in progress toward where we need to go. we made our aggressive recovering and resiliency efforts.

groups developed a simulation they call quantum dawn ii which is a simulation to structure what would be a cyber attack, 500 individuals and 50 organizations were involved in this over a long weekend. we have developed an information called systemic strife which stimulates a cyber attack in the payments area, which is very effective as well. we made good progress in working with president's executive order, the policy directive, and we were the most engaged of the sector to participate in the frameworks. we have also made some really nice progress in exposing the ceo's of the banking industry. the secretary was kind enough to hold a briefing in march that was an eye-opener in terms of risk, and the roundtable fsr conducted a comprehensive exposure to ceo's in september. we are making progress in terms

of point industry together, making everybody aware, and nvesting a lot of money. we need help, and if i may humbly ask for some help to the industry, mr. secretary, from the council, we need to continue to improve. these risk are huge. they are getting more substantial every day. we have to improve every single day. we need help in terms of ensuring the private sector and keep government agencies are really cooperating. we need to have more coordinated information coming primarily from the intelligence agencies through treasury. more likely, treasury, to use it to mitigate these efforts. we need to declassify affirmations of the information

an be gotten to the banks on a more timely basis. this is a very important point. this will go a long way to reduce that risk. you need to enhance the level of support from the telecommunications sector. what really happens in these attacks, as all the information comes in from the attackers, it comes in to the internet, the telecoms, and in many cases, the telecoms and to some degree the service or private are the only that can filter this malicious data and reduce the amount of data coming in to that banks. banks cannot just shut down because he would be shutting down our support of our clients. we need their help in terms of just filtering out a lot of his... 80. which they have capacity to do. we want to work with government gencies, particularly treasury

and dhs to facilitate clearances. people will be given clearances so we can do the information and mitigating risk. we would suggest we continue and expand briefings to the ndustry, ceo's and the chief information officers of these institutions so we can build a support and have a mechanism that has already been put in place so that if a catastrophe occurs, we will be able to take care of it. we need to work for the large banks, but also the small banks and the 14,000 small banks and credit unions out there. they do not have the capacity today that many of the largest have, to defend themselves, so we need to have a collaborative effort to work with the intelligence agencies, the realtor agencies, and the telecoms and service providers to provide a protocol that can be developed that will allow us to standardize and make effective a way for the small

banks to have reasonable defenses, because we do not want to expose ourselves to the risk that a perpetrator would gain entry at a weak point of the ystem. that is a really, really important issue for us to focus on. we need to work closely not only with large banks but with small banks. they don't have the capacity to be able to defend themselves. we need a collaborative effort. the protocol would allow us to send it out for the small banks to have reasonable defenses because we don't want to expose ourselves to the risk so they could gain entry into the system. we need to continue to support effective cybersecurity legislation.

i would like it to include the agencies to help in this omprehensive rattle. we have made a lot of progress. we have a long way to go. we're in this together. we have shared goals. we can make this a safe way to do business in the future. thank you. >> i would like to thank the staff of the regulatory agencies for their dedication on this issue and their work on the banking and infrastructure committee. the private sector committees that have been involved in this thsmi have been deeply involved in this since coming here. what strikes me is you meet with bankers.

this is on the radar. i do want to make sure we have the information flowing smoothly where it needs to. some of the sharing goes beyond what we can do on executive order. i would like to invite if there are questions and comments. > as chairman of the fdic, i thought it might be helpful to riefly update the council on some of the actions they have taken. it is directly responsive to some of the needs that have been dentified.

they did establish an infrastructure working group, and the goal was to emphasize the security and resilience of financial institutions and technology service from riders and to provide a liaison on this important topic. one of the primary objectives is to identify and address gap. as you know they have a long history relating to information technology. this has well established programs of working with bank technology supervisors. other objectives include

training, identifying and addressing skills and knowledge, awareness to develop external outreach regardless of size, information sharing to enhance collaboration and oordination. these latter two areas regarding information sharing are areas where we could greatly benefit from treasuries efforts and roles as a coordinating body on cyber issues. i would also note they are committed to assisting smaller institutions. this is why much of the initial focus will be geared towards assessing how prepared banks are to identify threats and pulled

her abilities, protect themselves and to respond to and recover from cyber attacks today and into the future. the working group is already developing plans for additional training for community banks and conducting risk assessment to identify gap where a additional resources may be needed. i want to recognize and thank my colleagues and their staffs for the support they are providing on these initiatives, which are in addition to the work they do in information technology rea.

i want to underscore the observation that cybersecurity is an ongoing issue that demands partnership among all the agencies, including the critical role in the communications sector and various financial utilities. i think this is another way in which they can play an important role. thank you. >> are there any other comments? if not, i would move to the next item on our agenda and thank you for making this an ongoing effort he does it is an ongoing issue we have to deal with. next item on the agenda is to

have the head of federal research provide a brief overview of research and analysis. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to report progress on key initiatives. today i will discuss three broad areas of our work. first monitoring financial stability, our reporting on the threats, and relating them to key themes in the report released last spring. i will report on preliminary research and data standards initiatives. first let me focus on financial stability. we are developing a new tool to threats. we measure five functions. macroeconomic, funding, credit, liquidity, and contagion risks.

we think this functional breakdown is best suited. we qualify this with economic ndicators and measurement we calculate. his has limitations. three of them are the metrics we employ them on are largely contemporaneous. we will incorporate new forward-looking issues into the framework. the connection between volatility and leverage may offer insight.

data alone may fail to capture risk. some risks are hard to measure. operational risk is clearly one of those. there we start by applying judgment, but we will work on ways to better qualify this risk. we identify a range of potential threats to financial stability. several are similar to the annual report. we are familiar from that report. first the threat of secured funding markets. second, exposure to interest rates and high fixed income portfolio. we also discuss a related fourth risk from a sudden shock to market liquidity. these are often related and often occur together. these identify not just the symptoms but also the cost. let me conclude i talking about our work on asset anagement. we delivered a report on the liquidity of the asset management industry.

this was intended to be and verview. it is aimed at informing the analysis of how they could create threats to financial stability. to give you a brief update on how we are filling the gaps and mentioned some results of data research. our process for measuring data gaps has three parts. second, we determine where the gaps may be. we fill those gaps. examples partly reflect the need to monitor some of the risks i ust described. two are in repo markets and inancial transactions. i will mention results in three

areas of research. these results largely confirm our intuition. first is the investments in eurozone names, which suggest it drove the decline over the past three years during the european sovereign debt crisis. it suggests banks generally are market makers. more work is needed to assist both sides of that market. we analyzed hedge fund markets using data collected. this suggests hedge fund leverage is inversely proportional. those that are considered level three assets, so that is a good thing on a preliminary basis. let me conclude with three

comments. i know you agree that data standards are important and we are making necessary investments. i focus on them because much more work is needed. as you know data standards are necessary to analyze it. this will include data quality. we have developed a framework for creating and promoting data standards. a key conclusion is to be affect standards should we adopted universally. we all need to use the same tandards to translate. two initiatives are underway. first the global identity nitiative.

it identifies parties to transactions. e collaborate with regulators. we are seeking broader implementation to sync with efforts abroad. the universal mortgage identifier has long been needed. in her agency collaboration on that initiative is paying off. with input from industry we have just published a concept taper. the paper discusses -- a concept paper. the paper discusses implementation. in both cases it strongly favors the use of standards to make data and reporting activities coherent and efficient. our standards cover a range of issues. other examples include collaboration across organizations.

first there is an adoption of best practices for data so we can better share them. second to use standards of uality of data collected and swap repositories. those are my remarks, and i would be happy to take questions. >> thank you, and i would ask for questions on the work. i think it is important the work they do. t is a new body created. we will be reviewing it with reat interest. to the extent you have a body of work behind you, does it give

you a different view in terms of the type of risk we need to be analyzing? are they designed to create a mechanism to support the work in thinking outside the box, looking ahead at the risk that might not come from each independent body independently? what are the things you take away from the experiences you have had as being the most important takeaways? >> there is a lot of important work taken to assess and monitor the risks. our job is to fill in the gaps between the work done among the agencies and to look across the financial system along with other organizations and agencies, so some of the work we are doing i think is really important.

looking at some of the operational risks are important, and we are starting to do some work in that area along with thers. looking at connections in liquidity and funding, i talked about that and what i just mentioned. i think the connections between institutions and market participants are important. it is the system we need to focus on, and that enables us to look at the system as a whole. >> thank you. f there are no further uestions i will close with a housekeeping matter of his nose. to confirm the minutes. >> i move. >> the minutes from the last

eeting are approved. unless there are other items anybody would like to raise, i asked for a motion to adjourn. second? >> second. >> i look forward to seeing everybody at the next meeting of the council. thank you. >> on the next "washington journal, loo a look at the budget agreement and the republican agenda. our guest will be keven brady. more about the budget grem with representative glen moore of wisconsin. a member of the budget and financial services committees. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> the reserve was established by an act of congress in 1913. today george washington university hosts an all day conference on the federal reserve system. you can see it lye starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> the u.s. house passed the two-year $85 brl budget agreement thursday by a vote of 332- 4. 169 republicans and 163 democrats voted yea while 62 republicans and 32 democrats voted against the bill. next, the house floor debate on the bill. it is an hour and 10 minutes. i minutes. rise -- i rise on behalf of the bipartisan budget agreement. s the first time since 1986 that a divided congress has done what we're about to do. here's what the bill does. it reduces the deficit by $23

billion. it does not raise taxes. and it cuts spending in a smarter way. we take temporary, across the board cuts, and replace them with targeted, permanent reforms. and these reforms, they take place immediately. first, we cut waste. we stop paying medicaid bills that deadbeat dads ought to cover. we stop sending unemployment checks to criminals. second, we go after corporate welfare. we eliminate a government ram for energy companies. we eliminate a carveout in the student loan program. third, we start to address the real problem and that is auto pilot spending. we ask new federal employees to contribute a little bit more toward their retirement. we ask private companies to cover a little bit more of their own pension guarantees. these savings build up over time. and this bill saves more than if we did nothing this bill isn't

as far as i'd like. it's not near the breadth and scope of the budget we passed yerler. but that's how it works in divided government. that's the nature of compromise. in a divided government you don't get everything you want. but i think this bill is a firm step in the right direction. it's not perfect, it's a start. that's how it works in divided government. i also think, mr. speaker, it gives us the added benefit of preventing washington from this lurch from crisis to crisis. we're bringing stability to the budget process. that will help build confidence and that confidence will help our economy. i'll be the first to admit, we have a lot more work to do. i've been bringing budgets to this floor for five years. that -- that balance the budget, that pay off the debt, that reform entitlement programs. that's what we want to do. that's what we're going to keep working on doing. but in this divided government, we're going to take the steps we can take and this step we think

is one in the right direction. we need to help strengthen the economy. we need to help create jobs and take-home pay. the bottom line is, this first step is designed to help improve people's lives. it's designed to make this government work at a basic functioning level. and by passing this, we'll reduce the deficit. we came here to get something done, we always lock horns, we always argue, we never agree, i think it's about time for once in a long time, we find common ground and agree and that is what this bill does and that is what i ask my colleagues to consider in support -- and support this agreement. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota -- om msmed

mr. van hollen: i thank the gentleman. this agreement is far from perfect. it is not the budget agreement i or many of my colleagues would have written. but i do believe that on balance, at the margin, it represents a small but positive step forward. mr. speaker, i would not have been able to say that as recently as this past monday and early tuesday but as a result of changes made, i think this is a positive step forward. i want to commend my fellow conferees on the house side, mr. clyburn, ms.low wie, as well as the efforts of leader pelosi, to make the changes necessary. as a result of those changes, this is an agreement that many of our colleagues can now support. and that is for many reasons. but most of all, it results in a

situation where we will avoid the very deep and harmful cuts from the sequester which if this congress does not act will automatically take effect a few weeks from now. and those very deep and unproductive, across the board cuts will create an unnecessary drag on the economy at a time when economic growth is building but still not nearly where it is. it will have a negative impact on job growth. and it will eat away at important national priorities and investments. as a result of this agreement, in fiscal year 2014, we will be able to invest $25 billion more in vital national areas than we ere in fiscal year 2013. of those $25 billion investments, $22.5 billion will

be in important areas of investment -- domestic investment. in areas of education, research, like medical research at the national institutes of health. it will also provide, as chairman ryan said, some certainty which is very important at this point in time. and without this agreement, you would be guaranteed additional furloughs of federal employees in the coming year. so i think it is a positive step forward. i do, mr. speaker, want to express my extreme disappointment on one -- in one area. the agreement itself, as chairman ryan acknowledged and senator murray recognized, decided not to include what we call the doc fix and decided we would not include unemployment insurance compensation extension. many of us argued that we should

include both of those in this agreement. in fact, house democrats proposed a -- an agreement along those lines. we believe that if we're going to do the doc fix, which we think is important, taking -- making sure that doctors who provide services to medicare patients are fully compensated, we should also make sure that individuals who are on long-term unemployment will not be left out in the cold three days after christmas. it was decided that those elements would not be in the agreement itself, and yet, last night, at the 11th hour, the house republican majority decided to insert the doc fix within this agreement. we support that doc fix but we are very troubled that we've not even been allowed to vote to extend unemployment compensation. but the reality, mr. speaker, is even without that, if we leave here without this agreement we're not going to get extension

of unemployment insurance, because the speaker won't allow us to have a vote on that, so the only thing we would accomplish by defeating this budget agreement would be to go home with a lot of uncertainty and with a sequester guaranteed to hit in january. that is not a good result. this agreement is a better result. i'll talk a little bit later about what we believe we should be doing in this congress. as the chairman said this agreement doesn't match his vision, nor does it match ours. and we put forward a proposal that would focus a lot more on job creation, to try to invest more in our national infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our broadband, to put people back to work right now. and accomplish important national priorities. we believe we should be focusing on early education, investing more in our future so we have job growth not only now from additional investments but ensure greater job growth in the future. there are other things that we

think were important in part of this agreement which are not in here but we continue to fight for in the days ahead. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from kentucky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. rogers: i rise in strong support of h.j.res. 59, the ryan-murray budget agreement. first i want to commend chairman ryan on achieving a resolution to our immediate budget challenges. it takes a good deal of courage, it takes persistence, it takes dedication to reach a bipartisan agreement such as this. and i want the chairman of the budget committee to know that we deeply appreciate his hard work on our behalf.

great job. while everyone might not like everything in this bill, it is the best product that is achieveable right now. and i urge that it be passed. as our -- this agreement reflects a compromise in policies but not in our conservative principles. not only does this deal hold the line on spending, it actually puts a dent in our annual deficit, a very significant accomplishment. plus it opens the door for future progress on the problem of runaway entitlements. it paves the way toward budget and economic stability for the next two years. the legislation before us will also accomplish several other critically important goals. first and foremost it will turn off the potentially devastating

$20 billion sequestration cut to our national defense. even if congress provided what flexibility we could, which isn't much, a cut of this magnitude would cripple readiness programs and leave us all at risk. second, this bill will allow congress to avoid another shutdown shedown. and help us -- showdown. and help us return to regular order. as i have said many, many times before, the best way to trim spending, ensure wise investments of taxpayer dollar, and provide stability for our government and our economy, is to do appropriations bills on an annual basis, each one separately brought to the floor, as the constitution intends. this budget conference agreement will now permit bicameral negotiations on the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bills to

begin, allowing my committee to get to work and make the hard, thoughtful, responsible, line-by-line funding decisions that are congress' duty to make. it's important to remember that this is just the first step in the current budget process. my committee will now begin to negotiate and craft an omnibus appropriations bill that will fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year with the goal of completing it before the end of the c.r. january 15. the omnibus will reflect the budget outline that is the ryan-murray bill before us now and will make the hard choices to implement this budget agreement into actual funding levels. mr. speaker, this is a good bill. it makes a significant first step to putting us on a more stable and responsible fiscal

path. again, i want to commend the chairman, the ranking member and all the members of the conference committee for the hard work, difficult decisions that they had to make to bring this bill to us now. i urge our colleagues to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to my colleague, friend, the gentlelady from maryland, on the transportation committee, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you mr. speaker and thank you to the gentleman from maryland, my friend and colleague for all of your work in getting us to this point. to my friend also chairman ryan for getting us to this point. and to all the conferees. i am in support of the bipartisan budget act. though i support the agreement, it isn't the bill i would have written. it's not the bill that i would have written to fully protect federal employees, today's

employees and future employees. it's not the bill i would have written to protect 1.3 million americans who are about to lose their emergency unemployment insurance, 2 2,900 of them in maryland just at the holidays. it's not the bill that i would have written that would have reduced cost of living adjustments for our nation's military retirees. it's not the bill i would have written to protect the commuter tax credit. but you know what, i didn't write this legislation, mr. speaker, it's a compromise, it's a negotiation, it's not perfect but i support it. the agreement does ensure that federal employees, current federal employees will get their cost of living increases this year, they won't face the uncertainties of furloughs and they will face stability for the next couple of years this compromise rejects the draconian proposals in the chairman's budge that would have made federal employees take 5.5% for their retime at a cost of $20

billion but that's not in this bill. this agreement does roll back sequestration cuts using spending cuts and new revenue. and the agreement increases nondefense discretionary spend big replacing almost 2/3 of this year's cuts, bringing the funding to $77 billion above the republicans' preferred budget levels. the agreement doesn't cut social security, medicare, or medicaid benefits, not by a single penny. what the agreement does is allows congress and this nation to get out of the dysfunction and the on instruction and to get on to the other business of protecting the american people, perhaps allowing us to focus on unemployment insurance extension, immigration, infrastructure investment and all the things that it takes to protect our economy. i support of this legislation, let's get on with it. with that, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i give myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for three minutes. . mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i want to walk you through a chart. in 2011 congress passed the budget control act. that set discretionary spending at this level up here, the blue line. it said that this thing we commonly call the supercommittee, was supposed to go and cut $1.2 trillion out of mandatory spending, auto pilot spending, the nondiscretionary part of the budget, the big, fast-growing part that congress rarely addresses. and if it didn't happen, then the sequester would kick in. that's this red line. that's where we are now, because the sequester has kicked in. and what we face in january is another round of sequester cuts, $20 billion, that hits solely on defense spending in the military. a lot of us are concerned about that. hen we have 85% of our troops, our brigades not ready, that's

a problem. when we have people in afghanistan and we need to reset our equipment and we're not where we need to be, that's a problem. that's a concern of ours. but what we do not want to do is lose any of the fiscal progress that was made by this act. in fact, we want to go farther. so what this bill does is it says, for this -- rest of this half fiscal year, fiscal year 2014, and the upcoming fiscal year, fiscal year 2015, it changes the discretionary .0012 ng to go to $1 trillion and back to $-- $1.012 trillion and back today 1.014 trillion, back to where we are with skeft -- sequester. that means that 92% of sequester is still in tact. for the next year and a half, this bill preserves 70% of the sequester. but we pay for that 30% that is given back. let me explain what that means,

just in a quick dollars and cent -- dollars and cents sense. this bill achieves $85 billion in mandatory savings. the things we talked about a minute ago. all those various permanent spending cuts. it gives back or relieves some of the -- from the sequester $63 billion in spending. half to defense, half to domestic spending like mr. van hollen was talking about. the result is a net deficit reduction of $23 billion. so, from the budget control act of 2011, this advances fiscal responsibility to the tune of $23 billion. to put it this way, another way, two years ago when we passed the first house republican budget, when we came into the majority, the appropriation number we were looking for then was $1.019 trillion. then in 2012 the appropriation bill we were fighting for then was $1.028 trillion. giving myself another minute to explain -- the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. ryan: the budget control act would have had us at $1.058 trillion. this agreement puts us at $1.012 trillion. under this agreement, we would not hit that discretionary spending number of $1.019 trillion, the one we asked for two years ago, we wouldn't hit that number until the year 2017. so with respect to a fiscal track record, we're ahead of schedule. d we are replacing some of these across-the-board spending cuts that don't set priorities, that don't -- that treat the efficient and inefficient programs the same with smarter, permanent spending cuts in the auto pilot part of spending, that part that congress all too often ignores. mr. speaker, this is good government, it's also divided government. and under divided government, we need to take steps in the right direction, and to make divided government work, you can't ask each other to

compromise a core principle because we don't do that here. we ask each other to find some common ground to advance the common good and that's what this agreement does and that is why i ask my colleagues to support it. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i think this agreement is an acknowledgment, at least a majority on both sides, certainly on the democratic side, a strong majority, that the sequester is a dumb and unproductive way to cut spending or to reduce the deficit. what this agreement does is prevent that full sequester from taking place over the next two years. we believe that we should address and substitute the remaining sequester through a balanced approach of additional targeted cuts, but, mr. speaker, we also think we should close some of these special interest tax loopholes that benefit nobody except

certain narrow interests that sometimes have undue sway here in the congress. but as my colleague said, we have different approaches than our republican -- and our republican colleagues have refused to close a single one of those tax breaks or preferences for the purpose either of reducing the sequester or reducing the deficit. so we have different approaches. we wouldn't have chosen the offsets that are in here. to pay for the sequester replacement. they are the result of a negotiation. but as i said earlier, i believe on balance this is an important step forward. and one of the people who was very important in this process was my good friend and colleague from new york, the ranking member of the appropriations committee and one of the conferees, mrs. lowey. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. van hollen: two minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, the budget deal is a breakthrough in a difficult budget year and

a dysfunctional congress. as with any compromise, there are elements i oppose, yet this agreement should help us do our jobs for the american people and end the shutdown standoff. it provides some relief from the devastating impacts of the sequester cuts on our economy and american families. keeping sequestration in place through fiscal year 2014 would cost up to an estimated $1.6 -- 1.6 million jobs. now, the house and senate must restore regular order to craft bills that instead create new jobs and protect important priorities like medical research, security and infrastructure upgrades, and early education. this agreement restores over 60% of the sequester on nondefense discretionary spending in 2014, restores those bills to roughly the f.y.

2013 enacted presequester levels. it would hold defense funding levels roughly consistent with the 2013 level after sequester. the bill before us includes elements frankly i don't like. fails to address others it should. first i'm deeply upset that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted on extending the 2% sequester on medicare providers for an additional two years as part of the package's offsets. we should not extends this sequester burden. it is also unconscionable that the deal does not extend long-term unemployment benefits. even with the progress our economy has made since the depths of the recession, there is still 1.3 million fewer jobs today than six years ago. four million americans have been looking for work for more than six months, more than 1.3 million of them -- 30 seconds?

mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. lowey: more than 1.3 million of them will lose their benefits and for some the only income they have, just three days after christmas and three days before the new year. today's bill will provide some economic certainty about fiscal policy over the next two years, which should boost growth and job creation. because we cannot continue lurching from crisis to crisis and despite my misgivings about the extension of medicare provider cuts and failure to address long-term unemployment, i will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham, for the purposes of colloquy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. and i will yield the two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. mr. welch: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from wisconsin,

regarding the not-for profit student loans provisions. is it your understanding and intent that the not-for profit servicing provision in this act does not require the termination of existing federal loan servicing contracts of any not-for profit services who are currently serving -- servicing federal loans, and it's the further understanding and intent of the gentleman from wisconsin that the education department will continue to enter into contracts with not-for profit services base odd on their performance? mr. ryan: will the gentleman yield? mr. welch: yes. mr. ryan: it is the legislative intent that existing contracts are not terminated by this bill. and that they will be permitted to -- permitted to compete with the department of education's title 4 services for additional accounts. i yield back to the colleague. mr. latham: mr. speaker, will the gentleman yield? mr. welch: i yield to the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: i rise to associate myself with the comments of the managers and am pleased to note it is their intent that the use

of not-for profit services continues and that not-for profit servicers will be permitted to compete in future -- in the future for additional accounts. i yield back to the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield to the gentleman from minnesota. >> i thank the gentleman. i also rise to associate with the comments of the managers and am pleased to know it is their intent that the use of not-for profit services continues and that not-for profit servicers will be permitted to compete in the future for additional accounts and i yield back to my colleague from vermont. mr. welch: i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to a good friend and colleague, one of the conferees who worked with us to move this agreement to a place where it was

supported by many of us on the democratic side, the assistant democratic leader, mr. clipe burn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina -- clyburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me thank my friend, mr. van hollen, for yielding me this time. and i want to thank him and mrs. lowey, for the tremendous work that they did in keeping this effort moving forward in a very positive way. i also want to thank chairman ryan for the great work he has done on this and the manner within which he got his work done. we don't talk a whole lot on this side of the capitol about the other side, but i also want to thank senator patty murray for all of her work. i had the great privilege of working with her on the

supercommittee and we didn't get much done. i was on the so-called biden group, along with mr. van hollen, and we didn't get anything done. but i'm pleased that this time of year to say that the third time seems to be the charm. this is not the product that i would have written if i were writing it and i'm sure that it's not the product that any of my democratic colleagues would write. i'm always concerned about the meat ax approach to dealing with the budget. nd so this effort takes that ay and allows us to approach ending in a way that is much

more conducive to running a government. we didn't get everything -- nobody gets everything they want in trying to reach common ground. but it's important for me to note at this time some things that were taken off the table. there are no cuts to social security. there are no benefit cuts to those receiving medicare or medicaid. and there's no targeting of federal employees for additional cuts. and the relief from the quester, in both defense and essential services, is very, very real and significant. it's also important to note what this bill does not do. and i am very concerned about the fact that we were not able

to make unemployment insurance a part of this effort. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. clyburn: thank you. and i am hopeful that when we get back here after the first of the year, that we will move and do as we have done in the unemployment insurance, make it retroactive until january 1, so those people who find themselves unemployed for no fault of their own -- through no fault of their own can find some relief going into the next holiday season. . so hopefully we'll do something on the minimum wage. these are things i think we need to do coming back after the first of the year and i thank the gentleman for yielding me time and i yield

back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: first, i'd like to yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to my friend from south carolina, mr. cry burn. i want him to know -- mr. clyburn. i want him to know that the time spent, that was not time wasted. that was productive time, because the findings from those groups were used in this agreement. the work that they did on all of those policies were work that we borrowed from to put this together. i want him to know that was productive use of his time which helped in turn produce this result. mr. clyburn: thank you very much. you're vy kind. -- you're very kind. mr. ryan: i yield three minutes to our distinguished whip, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccarthy: i want to thank the chairman of the budget committee for finding the leadership, finding the common ground, but actually moving this entire house. when i first came to congress, debate was always about more

spending, always about, what will the future hold? ever since the republican took the majority within the first four months we produced a budget to put us on a path with a much different approach. it was a path led by our chairman and a path that would actually grow jobs and move us in a new direction. the challenge of what we had was in the senate there was no budget. the last time since i've been here the senate produced the budget the ipad wasn't produced. but this house moved to no budget no pay and the senate began to move, but they came up with a different number than we hadded, and we found a stale -- we had had. and we found a stalemate that the country was frustrated with, we were frustrated with and we knew this was not congress designed. so with this agreement, it moves us in a much different place. every year that congress failed to pass a budget it ceded its power intended by our founders to be held by congress to the

zeck of tiff branch. as house -- executive branch. as house republicans helped make smarter spending decisions, the standards set by this agreement will be critically important. the budget agreement takes steps to reform mandatory spending that starts out slow but compounds over the years and results in a growing spending reduction year over year. it also moves us closer to a more responsible entitlement reform that leads to a balanced budget, paying down our debt economic ustainable futh. today is a new day. today is a day in the right direction and shows the common ground that this body and the senate can take as well and i thank all those involved and i ask for a vetio and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 1 1/2 minutes to a terrific member of the ways and means committee, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. neal: thank you, mr. van

hollen. thank you, mr. speaker. i think that the previous speaker forgot to mention the bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 totaling $2.3 trillion. the war in iraq was conveniently left out. the process of sequestration was ill-considered and the result is all around us. listen, i was happy to have it until i heard that the republicans were responsible for all of the good things in it and the democrats were only responsible for the revenue side. revenue is about 16% of gross domestic product right now. those are the eisenhower years. we need to have this discussion. now, let me say this as well. mr. ryan deserves to be credited, as does mr. van hollen, for the measure that's in front of us today. if we get past some of the acura moany, maybe we can -- acramony, maybe we can move forward. the automobile sector is doing much better. the private sector in general is. americans are shedding debt, but not to miss the point there is a very allusive term that

needs to be addressed today and that's the term confidence. the government shutdown shaved one to two points off the gross domestic product. that's reality. that's not fiction. we need to get past again the harsh language that has now taken over this institution and provide investors and provide the american people with the idea of some confidence to unleash the forces of that $2 trillion that's sitting here domestically and another $1 trillion that's sitting offshore. this is the sort of conversation that we need to have. this is a confidence-building measure. and it does lighten up some of the spending caps, again, that would have caused grave damage to the economy. we should have found the time to help out on the issue of unemployment benefits. mr. speaker, we did the doc fix this morning. i favored it. $8 billion over three months. we could have found money in this budget to extend unemployment benefits to the american families. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. ryan: mr. speaker, there are a couple other factors that i think members should weigh as we look at this legislation. number one is, if we do not pass this legislation, we face a fiscal impasse on january 15 and therefore a potential government shutdown at that time and then we face a fiscal impact at the end of september and a possible government shutdown at that time. i don't know of anyone in this body that thinks these government shutdowns are productive or useful or helpful to our economy. and so by having this agreement in place, we prevent those two episodes from occurring, and we prevent those two government shutdowns. oint number two, for too long, for three years this body, congress, the legislative branch, the one that the founders envisioned in the constitution would be exercising the power of the purse, the branch of government of s the representative

the people that's supposed to decide how money is spent, well, we've been ceding that authority to the executive branch by pass whag we call -- passing what we call continuing resolutions. so the spending priorities that were set three years ago are still in place, and then we just keep writing these blank checks to the administration and they set the priorities. that's not partisan thing. that's an stoonl thing. that's a -- institutional thing. that's a separate of powers thing. democrats and republicans alike believe we should do our jobs, that we should exercise the power of the purse, that the legislative branch should bring back its authority to do this. this does that by restarting the appropriations process, by agreeing to these numbers, hich are bipartisan numbers, mutually agreed to numbers, by not doing continuing resolutions, we are reclaiming the power of the purse. i'll give myself another

minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ryan: there are those of us who are worried about regulations, who are worried about the exercise of power at the executive branch, who are worried about a sense of less accountability among the executive branch. we do lots of oversight hearings. we do dozens a week. but oversight pails in comparison when it doesn't -- pales in comparison when it doesn't have any fiscal force behind it. by reclaiming the power of the purse, by having congress write the budgets and approve and decide the budgets of the executive agencies, that gives us a far stronger hand in affecting effective oversight, in conducting oversight. by using the power of the purse, along with effective oversight, we can do our jobs as the legislative branch in conducting oversight of the executive branch and setting

priorities. my friends have their priorities and we have our priorities and sometimes we meet, sometimes we don't. at least congress gets to set the priorities on how the money sent to us from hardworking taxpayers is spent. that's one of the things that's accomplished in this agreement. that, along with all these other reasons is why i really encourage all of our members to support this agreement. with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield a minute and a half to my friend, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i want to thank my colleagues for arriving at a budget deal. when we asked our democratic conferees to negotiate the best deal they could, we did it knowing they were negotiating with colleagues whose priority is debt reduction, not jobs. even though the federal government' deficit is the smallest since 2008. given the republican priorities, they had a heavy

task of partially lifting the sequester, protecting social security, medicare, and medicaid and averting shutdown. and so i think that's good, but there are parts of the deal that leave me very uncomfortable. i can't possibly imagine leaving this place, leaving all those americans, over a million people without any means of substan nens other than their -- substance other than their local food shelf. it's not right and it's bad for the economy because the people who got those unemployment insurance checks would be able to spend them with local vendors which would actually help our economy. that's not going to happen unless something happens. i heard estimates as high as 310,000 jobs could be lost if omething isn't done. also, the $6 billion for future federal employee's retirement, i'm very disturbed about that because we need good people working for the federal government. how can we attract the best people to work for this country if we're -- every time we got

to solve a budget problem we're going into their piggy bank? if we eliminated accelerated depreciation, we would be 3/4 of the way there on these federal employee's retirement benefits -- federal employees' retirement benefits. i'm glad we didn't look to close any loopholes, and that's a shame so i remain disappointed. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. i think i'll reserve at this time. i'm waiting for the leader. he's on his way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. may i inquire as to how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from wisconsin has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, at this time i yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from

california, great member of the armed services committee, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. davis: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we have taken a first step to come together. well, it's a bigger step than we have seen in a while, but let's remember it is only a first step. and i think people have said a small step, but it is a step and i, as excited as some of you are saying that we have been able to do that. however, and more than that, unfortunately, we have not been able to come together to keep up the safety net for 1.3 million unemployed americans by extending emergency unemployment insurance. and in fact, the problem of long-term unemployment is not even addressed. it wasn't -- even discussed at length. if you want to pull away the safety net and leave people with nothing, well, at least,

at least have some creative solutions for getting them back to work. now, like many of you, i have to go back to my district, i have to go back to my constituents in san diego who have been struggling to find work for so long and tell them that we could not come together o preserve their only means of sustenance. so remember, as we take this step forward, let us keep working forward to extend unemployment benefits for those in desperate need and start, let us start coming up with some bigger solutions to getting people back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, a member of the budget committee, mr. rokita. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes.

mr. rokita: i thank the chairman. i thank him for his leadership, not only on this issue but on so many of the bills and issues that come before this congress, and i also thank the leadership on the other side of the budget committee and the other side of this congress for their leadership in coming together as well. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this bipartisan budget legislation. as you know, mr. speaker, i'm one of the folks around here who is considered by some affectionately, some by others not so affectionately as a budget hawk. i came to reduce our spending and get as much value for every dollar we take from the taxpayer, and more increasingly, from the children of tomorrow, from those who don't exist who are taxed. i am actively, in my opinion, engaged in them. i will say on this house floor

that this budget is a better deal than the current sequestration law because it makes spending reforms beyond sequestration that will continue on after sequestration expires. the reforms start immediately and compound over time. by the way, mr. speaker, i'm not talking about trading real sequester savings from magic beams. these are reforms that will and once this bill passes once the president signs it. and again, compound over time. finally, mr. speaker, we're starting to open the door and address what is actually causing our deficits and debt and that is our entitlement programs and i applaud the chairman of the budget committee. i applaud the ranking member and others in the senate who are supporting this measure because we're timely able to get to

discuss and solve what is the major problem that this country is facing at this time. like the others who have spoken, i look forward to having more of these discussions and getting to the business of solving mr. cantor: ti thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of the bipartisan budget act of 2013 pfment mr. speaker, in a divided government, the american people

expect members of both parties to find common ground to move america forward. while this budget agreement is not perfect, it is a step forward towards bridging our differences and bringing fiscal responsibility to washington. the legislation before the house today will reduce our deficit. it will make long-term pension reforms and it will do so without raising taxes on the hard-working middle-class families of our country. this budget deal protects our national security at home and around the world while making dramatic cuts to our national defense as a result of the sequester. mr. speaker, i think we can all agree that arbitrary indiscriminate across-the-board spending cuts are not the smartest way to cut spending. last year, republicans passed two bills that would have replaced the sequester cuts.

this bill before us is a reflection of our priority to replace the sequester with permanent savings that will responsibly reduce our deficit. this legislation will allow congress to concentrate on appropriating taxpayer funds to our country's highest priorities. let's stand together and show the american people that we are focused on reining washington's spending habits while growing our economy. i want to thank the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, for his perseverance in his quest to rein the wasteful spending to work towards balancing our budget. i want to thank him for his tenacity in the negotiations that he had with senator murray to arisk at this deal. i thank him and his entire committee for their hard work.

this is a bipartisan budget agreement, one that has not been frequently seen in terms of bipartisan agreement on this floor. and i urge my colleagues in the house to support this agreement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. i want to just emphasize a point that we both made which is that if we had our druggetters, we would have approached this issue differently. and i say with respect to some of the offsets, there are many of us who would have preferred to see the closures of many special interest tax breaks as part of the offsets in this legislation. i hope as we go forward, we would agree that's also a kind of wasteful spending in the tax code. if you give a special interest in this country some tax preference not enjoyed by

others, you're simply raising the burden on everybody else. it's simply a form of spending through the tax code. so, mr. speaker, as we address these issues going forward, whether it's replacing the sequester or reducing the deficit, as part of a balanced approach, we think we should take those into account as well. we also propose as part of this measure applying some of the excessive subsidies that we give to ag businesses as part of the offsets and our colleagues rejected those. this is a product of compromise. but i do want to let people know that it had been our premps to close some of those special interest tax breaks and use some of those excessive agriculture subsidies as offsets rather than some of the provisions that are before us. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i would like to yield

one minute to the distinguished speaker of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house, is recognized for one minute. the speaker: let me thank chairman ryan and his senate counterparts and democrats and republicans on both sides of the capitol who worked hard to bring this agreement together. my colleagues, i think it's pretty simple. if you are for reducing the budget deficit, then you should be voting for this bill. if you are for cutting the size of government, you should be supporting this budget. if you are for preventing tax increases, you should be voting for this budget. you are for entitlement reform, you ought to be voting for this budget. these are things that i came here to do and this budget does them. it's a -- is it perfect, does it go far enough? no, not at all. it will take a lot more work to

get our arms around our debt and our deficit. but this budget is a positive step in that direction. it's progress. it's doing what the american people expect us to do. it's coming together and finding common ground. stick to our principles, but find common ground. so again, i commend chairman ryan and chairman murray for their work. and i urge all of my colleagues to vote for this budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. the chairman of the budget committee have any other speakers? mr. ryan: i don't. mr. van hollen: we are waiting for mr. hoyer to arrive. so if i could reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from from

arkansas, mr. womack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. womack: i thank chairman ryan for his great leadership informinging this particular agreement and putting us in a position to end on a positive note here as we approach the christmas and the holiday season. mr. speaker, i'm going to bring a couple of different perspectives to the floor as i analyze this budget deal. the first perspective i have is being a former mayor. for 12 years in a city in northwest arkansas there was enormous economic development. i sat at the table many times talking about issues and trying to balance the needs of our community against what the wants of our community were and i never ever ended any of those negotiations getting everything that i wanted, but i always looked for an opportunity to find a common ground and to

advance the economic development issues of our city where we could find that type of consensus. mr. speaker, i also bring the perspective of an appropriator, someone who came to congress in 2011, was immediately assigned to the appropriations committee and i have been frustrated through this entire process living from c.r. to c.r. and never ever having the opportunity to do what appropriators are purposed in doing. and this agreement, while not perfect, as has already been mentioned by most every speaker, gives us an opportunity to take government shutdowns off the table, to restore some much needed fubbed funding to something that is important to all of us and that is our national defense and as an appropriator, gives us the opportunity to do our jobs and quick c emp ding to the administration down the street.

from that perspective, mr. speaker, i think this is the right deal at the right time. it gives us an opportunity to give some certainty to the american public who is looking to this congress to be able to work together to try to find the solutions that move america forward. with that, i urge support and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield four minutes to our distinguished whip and somebody who has been working very hard on these budget issues and working with us also to make sure that this is done in as fair and equitable manner as possible and worked with us very

closely to make sure that federal employees do not take a disproportionate share of the burden and as a result of our efforts, current federal employees will not be asked to bear additional burdens after having already borne so much of the burden. with that, i yield four minutes to my friend, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: the gentlemen from maryland are happy to be here, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: i'm ecstatic, too. mr. hoyer: america is advantaged work ong two people who the budget committee who have great intellect, great integrity and care about america. mr. ryan from wisconsin and mr.

van hollen from maryland. the american public sometimes is not sure that it has the kind of quality that if they were here sitting in the budget committee or on the floor listening to these two gentlemen, who have disagreements, but who represent their positions well. mr. speaker, i voted for every budget compromise that has been over the past three years , without fail. the results, however, invariably have been an unremitting undermining of our efforts to reach a balanced fiscal policy and to invest in that which will secure our future. the economy, education, infrastructure, national security and innovation. and while each of those bills was preferable to default on our debt or the shutting down of our government, they have been simply stopgap measures that

have not been from congresses shale created and all too frequent fiscal crises. the headlines regarding this agreement put it in perspective. an op ed in the "new york times" said quote, congress avoids reality again, closed quote. the "wall street journal" calls it the least bad budget deal. and while "usa today" headline says minimalist budget deal beats another shutdown. the editorial concludes with this, however. quote, unless we come to grips with the fiscal issue, we will be inflicting a huge financial burden on our children. i agree. the deal before us today does not deal with the fundamental issue of long-term fiscal

stability. my friend, mr. ryan, says he wants to do that. my friend, mr. van hollen, says he wants to do that. i think senator murray wants to do that. we have not done that. we have not dealt with the underlying issues that prevent us from going down a fiscally sustainable path. it does not replace the full sequester, which chairman hal rogers has correctly described as ill-advised and unrealistic. i sat on this floor when we considered the gentleman's budget that if there were no democrats in the house of representatives, they could not implement that budget. i believe that. i believe it because the figures not related to priorities or vision or that which we needed to accomplish as a country, but on a number.

967. that's an opinion shared by all of the republican appropriation subcommittee chairmen and wrote a letter to that effect. nor does this agreement deal with the issue of the debt limit . . and which has historically been an infelix point to further reduce not only discretionary spending on both sides, mainly on the nondefense side, but also to reach once again into the pockets of federal employees. now, i'm someone who represents 62,000 federal employees, and i recommended zero colas the first two years we did zero colas. why? the economy was in trouble and it was necessary for federal employees, like everybody else, to participate.

mr. van hollen: i yield a minute. mr. hoyer: if we fail to resolve this issue now, it will simply plunge us into another manufactured crisis which will quickly undermine the stability and confidence that some believe this agreement is bringing. the fact that this agreement deals temporarily with preventing a cut in medicare's physician reimbursement is welcomed, but for our fiscal sustainability, it needs to be dealt with on a permanent basis. i'm pleased that the house ways and means committee and the house finance committee had legislation to do so. however, it's unconscionable that the budget deal before us today does not extend unemployment insurance which helps those who are most at risk in our society, and if we don't not help them, 200,000 jobs are expected to be lost. on december 28, 1.3 million americans will lose unemployment insurance if we do an additional

three million by 2014. the house should not leave toum without ensuring that individuals -- town without ensuring that individuals have unemployment insurance. finally, mr. speaker -- if you got an additional minute? mr. van hollen: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: this turns to middle class workers. i'll submit the balance of my statement. let me close with this. this agreement is better than the alternative, but it misses a huge opportunity to do what the american people expect us to do and that is put this country on a fiscally sustainable path. i would urge my friend from wisconsin and i urge my friend om maryland, my colleague, summon up the courage, much of which you've already shown, to help us put this country on a fiscally sustainable path and,

yes, make tough decisions, and i'll join with the gentleman from wisconsin and the gentleman from maryland in helping us get the votes for those tough decisions that are necessary, but it needs to be a balanced deal. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: no more speakers and reserve the right to close. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, great member of the judiciary committee, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i want to thank the gentleman for his kindness in yielding. as i indicated earlier today that even the "time" magazine recognized that the better of all of us is when we extend ourselves to the most vulnerable, acknowledging pope francis. and so i want to ask the

chairman of the budget committee, because he heard so many of us, indicate that there is value to this budget deal, chairman ryan. question, if se a i could, to you, if i could. you heard us say that we, too, appreciate the bipartisanship. i disagree with so much of it in terms of the sequester and what has been done as it relates for nutrition, for the unemployed, but would you not hold us back, would you not join us in putting on the floor n amendment that would provide for the extension of unemployment that will not run out december 28 for the hardworking americans, 68,000 in texas, 1.3 million, would you not do that? mr. ryan: i'll defer to the speaker's comments. ms. jackson lee: well, we get no answer. all i can say is that this budget is a deal that i want to thank mr. value holen for the work that's -- van hollen for the work that's been done, mrs. lowey, mr. clyburn, but i believe we should not leave here today, leave here this

week without having a free standing, and i wish the gentleman would own up to honesty and to answer the question, but put on the floor of the house the opportunity for those who have worked to be able to get unemployment insurance, not a handout, but unemployment insurance. i know, mr. ryan, we can carry out bipartisanship, at least to that point and be able to work on behalf of the american people, carrying forward the need to ensure that we have housing, education, childcare, all of that, a little bit is happening under this particular budget. that's why many of us are interested in moving forward getting rid of the sequester, keeping the doors opened, but i would think that there's enough bipartisanship on both sides of the aisle to be able to extend the unemployment insurance and we should not leave here. i ask the president to convene us, to call us, to call the senate, call the house and make sure we vote on that. i thank the gentleman for the hard work that you have engaged in and also how far you have brought us. ith that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has one minute remaining. mr. van hollen: is the gentleman prepared to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer's right. this agreement does not address the comprehensive issues that we need to address. we need to address those in a balanced way, and that means working on both additional smart, targeted spending cuts but also closing special interest tax breaks. but what this agreement does do is make sure that in the next several weeks we do not move to a full sequester, very deep across-the-board cuts which will hurt the economy. instead, it provides more room to invest in vital areas like education and research. that is a positive note. that is a positive bipartisan note. i do want to say, mr. speaker, however, and this is not the

result of anything the chairman of the budget committee does. there's also a sour note in leaving here without having to address the unemployment insurance. this agreement didn't include the doc fix and it didn't include unemployment insurance. we should be dealing with both those issues together. we're only dealing with one of them now. so i hope as we go forward we will address those issues and we should not leave town until we address the unemployment issue but let's at the same time take this small positive step forward. i thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman from wisconsin has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, there are many reasons why i encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan budget agreement. number one, by doing this we reduce the deficit by $23

billion. if we don't do this we don't $23 e the deficit by billion. that means we're reducing it versus doing nothing. a step in the right direction. a move toward fiscal responsibility, not near as far as we want to go but at least going in the direction we want to go. the budget we passed here in the house, just like the prior two budgets that we passed here in the house, represents the full extent of our ambition, our vision and our goals. it balances the budget within 10 years. it reforms the tax code without raising taxes. it reforms our entitlement programs that were vital and were made in the 20th century so they work for the 21st century. it pays off our debt so that we do not leave our children a nation of debt. that's our goal. that's our vision. that's our destiny.

with the bipartisan budget agreement we couldn't accomplish that because we have different opinions, we have different objectives. hat's why we work for common ground. that's why we took our budget, all the different budgets that were offered, we laid them on top of each other and we looked for common ground. we went through the federal budget program by program, line by line. we discussed and debated these things and we saw where is it we agree needs reforming? where is it that we agree taxpayer money is being wasted? where is it we agree that cronyism and corporate welfare should go away? where is it that we agree that some reform for autopilot mandatory spending ought to occur? and where we found that agreement we put it in this agreement. that's the way it's supposed to work. so we see this as a step in the right direction on the way our ultimate ling

goal. second thing we accomplished that's very important to us, and mr. van hollen kind of mentioned it. this does not raise taxes. hardworking taxpayers have worked hard and long enough that we need to work on spending instead of taking more from them. third thing, we're taking permanent spending cuts to pay for temporary sequester relief. we think that's a good idea. the savings clearly take time to accrue in this agreement, and that's because we're changing permanent law and those permanent law changes that are made by this act start accruing and compounding that savings so that the savings keep growing and compounding on and on and on. the funny thing about autopilot spending, we call mandatory spending, is it compounds away rom you and spends so much more but if you get reforms, if you get savings, those savings compound as well. this does that. permanent spending cuts to pay for some temporary sequester relief. now what is a sequester? it's across the board, it's

accrued, it doesn't prioritize, it doesn't give congress a say so on how the money is spent. this is the third thing that i think is pretty good. in keeping 92% of the sequester intact, what this bill does is it says congress ought to decide how money is being spent, not the administration. so instead of deferring and delegating our power to the executive branch with continuing resolution after continuing resolution, we, republicans and democrats, the legislative branch are bringing that power back to congress so that the people's house, so that the legislature as the founders in the constitution intended, we decide how that money is being spent. we decide how to prioritize spending. that's our job. i also like the precedence this sets. we know we are always going to have fiscal pressure, because the sequester, as they mentioned, have not been lifted. it's always going to be here so it's always going to produce

pressure. i like the precedent that we're starting here. we're fought going back to the taxpayer. -- we're not going to go back to the taxpayer. we are going to ask the government to deal with less, and as we transfer permanent spending cuts for temporary relief, we're going to have more spending cuts than we give back in relief so we reduce the deficit further. $85 billion in mandatory savings to pay for $63 billion in sequester relief, that's a pretty good precedence. i'd like to add one or two more zeros at the end of these numbers, but i'll take the direction that we have right now. the other point is this. we've been at each other's throats for a long time. look, i was part of the last presidential election. we tried defeating this president. i wish we would have. elections have consequences, mr. speaker, and i fundamentally believe, this is my personal opinion. i know it's a slightly partisan thing to say.

to really do what we think needs to be done, we have to win some elections. and in the meantime, let's try to make this divided government work. i think our constituents are expecting a little more from us. they're expecting us to not keep shutting the government down. they're expecting us to pay the bills. they're expecting us to be accountable. they're expecting us to watch how the dollars are being spent, and they're expecting us to find common ground and that's what this does, and that's why i urge all of my colleagues to support >> it was observed -- george washington university hosts a conference on the federal reserve system. you can see it live at 9:00 eastern on c-span three. long termook at health care spending.

we examine proposals for public programs like medicare. you can see that live at 12:15 eastern on c-span. let me be very clear. this is a delicate, diplomatic moment trip we have a chance to adjust peacefully one of the most resting national security concerns that the world faces today. implications of the potential for conflict. we are at a crossroads. we're at one of those hinge points in history. one path could lead to an enduring resolution. the other path could lead to continued hostility and potentially to conflict. i do not have to tell you that these are high-stakes. , secretarykend co of state john kerry on sanctions

in a ran. -- iran. watch saturday morning a time clock eastern. longtimeey and his cardiologist talk about the former vice president's history with heart disease and advancements in cardiology. saturday night at 11:00. tv, a american history look at the free african american men and former slaves who fought for the union. that is sunday at 11:00 eastern. coming up, your calls plus the news of the day. on today's "washington journal." and health reform examines lower cost for medicare. thein 45 minutes, a look at $85 billion budget agreement. and the 2014 republican agenda. our guest will be congressman

kevin brady. 8:45, representative when more. -- gwen moore. >> on this vote the eyes are 100 32, -- are 332. the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. ♪ with that vote, the house finished its work for 2013, it is now up to the senate to debate the budget agreement. this morning on "washington journal" we want to get your reaction. the house passing a two-year budget agreement last night.